Quantitative Research Quotes

Statistics is the plural of anecdote.

Every day we go over data and use science and data to drive policy and decision-making.

We spend our time bandying statistics about.

Science is based on reproducibility and manufactured objectivity. As strong as that makes its ability to generate claims about matter and energy, it also makes scientific knowledge inapplicable to the existential, visceral nature of human life, which is unique and subjective and unpredictable.

I'm a pollster by trade, so I'm into things that are actually quantifiable.

Early in my career, I was disappointed that psychoanalysis was not becoming more empirical, was not becoming more scientific. It was primarily concerned with individual patients. It wasn't trying to collect data from large groups of people who have been analyzed.

Everyone takes surveys. Whoever makes a statement about human behavior has engaged in a survey of some sort.

All of the studies we do in my group are quantified.

Scientists have a tendency to believe in absolutes, in studies and the repeating of them. Psychoanalysis is firmly based in subjective accounts. We need both.

Even one well-made observation will be enough in many cases, just as one well-constructed experiment often suffices for the establishment of a law.

Looking at scientific inquiry, next paradigm will be based on very large datasets. Scientists are in the lead in handling very large datasets - Hubble telescope or Large Hadron Collider are massive datasets.

Statistics is, or should be, about scientific investigation and how to do it better, but many statisticians believe it is a branch of mathematics. Now I agree that the physicist, the chemist, the engineer, and the statistician can never know too much mathematics, but their objectives should be better physics, better chemistry, better engineering, and in the case of statistics, better scientific investigation. Whether in any given study this implies more or less mathematics is incidental.

We know: of course, with regard to the market and similar social structures, a great many facts which we cannot measure and on which indeed we have only some very imprecise and general information.

I think there is a tendency in science to measure what is measurable and to decide that what you cannot measure must be uninteresting.

Data allow your political judgments to be based on fact, to the extent that numbers describe realities.

I love facts and figures. It's like following a detective story, piecing together what's going on in the economy.

What is said upon a subject is gathered from an hundred people.

We sent our user research team out to sit with customers for periods of time and get some insight into how Slack is working. We also get tens of thousands of points of contact via Twitter and our customer support ticketing system every month and can synthesize those results.

The company started in the early 90s or late 80s. We were a behavioural science company. We didn't pivot into data analytics till 2012. So, all the data that we collected pre-2012, which was done by the British company SBL group, was collected through quantitive and qualitative research on the ground.

A poll survey should indicate at the outset whether it is meant to capture opinions and beliefs for preferences and practices or value and perceptions.

I had been writing for about twelve years. I knew pretty well how you could find things out, but I had never been trained in an academic way how to go about the research.

Quantitative methods are no more synonymous with objectivity than qualitative methods are synonymous with subjectivity.

People doing the kind of sound research that I'm interested in still have a difficult time.

Statistics began as the systematic study of quantitative facts about the state.

If I am not mistaken, psychology, psychiatry and some branches of sociology, not to speak about the so-called philosophy of history, are even more affected by what I have called the scientistic prejudice, and by specious claims of what science can achieve.